Why be nice when you can can get the same by being cruel

[Tellos Athenaios]

In the most simple theoretical cost/benefit terms, cruelty works only if you are undisputed and it is a cause for others to challenge you. There's a long term hidden cost.
Kindness just works and is a cause for others to support you. There's a long term interest.

Or: if you are a member of a social species you rely on other members not to hurt you more than they help you. If they breach that unspoken agreement it is time for being vicious.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the most simple theoretical cost/benefit terms, cruelty works only if you are undisputed and it is a cause for others to challenge you. There's a long term hidden cost.
Kindness just works and is a cause for others to support you. There's a long term interest.

What if someone is undisputed? And there may be a long term cost, but why not be cruel in an isolated instance that no one will remember (say, on vacation)? I think that's a problem with the "it goes around", karma, conscience explanations of why it's wrong. Can you show that there aren't a lot of people who do cruel things and don't regret it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think the dilemma involves getting something you (will) want (if not now then in some future), from someone else/others and taking this into account in general decision making. This is not about being sadist or saint, it is also not about opportunistic behaviour but more general decision making. So to say “no one will remember” is odd: who are you being cruel -or kind- to if not the victim/beneficiary of your choice, why should this pattern go unnoticed over the long term?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think the dilemma involves getting something you (will) want (if not now then in some future), from someone else/others and taking this into account in general decision making. This is not about being sadist or saint, it is also not about opportunistic behaviour but more general decision making. So to say “no one will remember” is odd: who are you being cruel -or kind- to if not the victim/beneficiary of your choice, why should this pattern go unnoticed over the long term?

Who said it's a pattern?

Let's say I go on vacation alone, don't tip at the restaurant, act rude to the cab driver, find a wallet take the money and ditch it instead of trying to return it, etc etc then go back to my home 2000 miles away. Nothing is going to "come around" to bite me--none of my social acquaintances (who I'm always nice to) know. So that reason fails. And I find the assertion that everyone will feel the pangs of conscience to a significant degree doubtful. People are good at rationalizations.

How about someone in a racist town who is polite to the white people and cruel to the black people? Is that going to come back to bite him socially? Is he going to feel guilty about it given his upbringing? Doing the right thing would come back to bite him socially.

Basically, if your reason for being nice is some form of "what goes around comes around" what do you say to my racist? Rejecting the beliefs of the group you belong to will "come around" as well. Telling them they are immoral will "come around". So that reason just leads to "be nice to some groups, be cruel to others, based on what's socially accepted".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Who said it's a pattern?

Assuming that there is generally a choice between cruel & nice to make to get what you want to get, yes someone is going to classify you either as “cruel” or as “nice”.

Let's say I go on vacation alone, don't tip at the restaurant, act rude to the cab driver, find a wallet take the money and ditch it instead of trying to return it, etc etc then go back to my home 2000 miles away. Nothing is going to "come around" to bite me--none of my social acquaintances (who I'm always nice to) know. So that reason fails. And I find the assertion that everyone will feel the pangs of conscience to a significant degree doubtful. People are good at rationalizations.

How about someone in a racist town who is polite to the white people and cruel to the black people? Is that going to come back to bite him socially? Is he going to feel guilty about it given his upbringing? Doing the right thing would come back to bite him socially.

Basically, if your reason for being nice is some form of "what goes around comes around" what do you say to my racist? Rejecting the beliefs of the group you belong to will "come around" as well. Telling them they are immoral will "come around". So that reason just leads to "be nice to some groups, be cruel to others, based on what's socially accepted".

And what did you want to get out of your hypothetical cruelty here? That's the whole premise of the thread: there's something you desire to be had.

EDIT: I should perhaps add that I think the topic is really in the title which is a general question quite devoid of specific circumstances. A choice of heuristic in getting what you want: being nice or being cruel, and why would anyone choose the former?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Assuming that there is generally a choice between cruel & nice to make to get what you want to get, yes someone is going to classify you either as “cruel” or as “nice”.

EDIT: I should perhaps add that I think the topic is really in the title which is a general question quite devoid of specific circumstances. A choice of heuristic in getting what you want: being nice or being cruel, and why would anyone choose the former?

I don't think it answers why we should be generally nice either. The racist town example is case in point.

And if it only justifies "generally", surely it's inadequate? And if there is a reason for being nice in the examples that aren't covered by "generally", wouldn't that reason apply to all the examples that are?

The karma reason is a fairy tale kind of reason. Like "cheaters never prosper" and others, it really only functions as a persuasive, not as a reason.

And what did you want to get out of your hypothetical cruelty here? That's the whole premise of the thread: there's something you desire to be had.

Money, social acceptance in one example, and whatever it is people get out of being rude.

[Fragony]

Good example. I'm with the German it's nicer to be nice and I really like to think that I'm nice, and I am pretty sure I'm right about that.

But not being nice does pay off, you need to do it, and nice people don't, but you can grab a year's salary in a day, crime pays

My question is rather on society

[Beskar]

It ultimately depends on the situation. Being nice is one thing, but being a push over is something else completely. You can be nice and not a pushover at the same time. There are also the cases of "cruel-to-be-nice" where you do an action which by itself might seem cruel, but with further reasoning and wider-insight, is seen as being very beneficial and nice.

As for Sasaki's example, I was nice to the waiter at the restaurant (it had nice food at a good price as well), next time I went in, there was a queue, so I was going to walk away, and he stopped me and went "I saved you a table, come in.", so I ended up skipping the queue, and pretty much got "VIP" treatment. Obviously ended up tipping him, but he frankly deserved it.

Now, there was another example where some one did really bad service, and he went and asked me for a tip, and I replied "Give up your job and apply some where else, this line of work is not your forté." Was I cruel or was I being nice to the person? After all, I gave him the best tip that night, with that comment.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It ultimately depends on the situation. Being nice is one thing, but being a push over is something else completely. You can be nice and not a pushover at the same time. There are also the cases of "cruel-to-be-nice" where you do an action which by itself might seem cruel, but with further reasoning and wider-insight, is seen as being very beneficial and nice.

Now, there was another example where some one did really bad service, and he went and asked me for a tip, and I replied "Give up your job and apply some where else, this line of work is not your forté." Was I cruel or was I being nice to the person? After all, I gave him the best tip that night, with that comment.

Cruel and nice don't cover everything. You weren't being cruel or nice in the waiting situation.

As for Sasaki's example, I was nice to the waiter at the restaurant (it had nice food at a good price as well), next time I went in, there was a queue, so I was going to walk away, and he stopped me and went "I saved you a table, come in.", so I ended up skipping the queue, and pretty much got "VIP" treatment. Obviously ended up tipping him, but he frankly deserved it.

If you had known you would never be back at the restaurant, wouldn't it have been right to be nice to the waiter in the same way? What's the word for people who are nice with their own gain in their sights (like your waiter possibly), schmoozers?